This article is describing a nature scene. McPhee begins with trees, explaining the different kinds. He goes as far as to explain the way they grow estimating how tall they grow and how they descend. The article then moves into describing smaller types of bushes and shrubs. Naturally, McPhee moves into describing flowers blossoms (taking a closer look). I propose that he is setting the article up this way by describing the larger picture (with the tress) and moving in for a closer view (with the flowers and blossoms). After he describes a closer look with the flowers he steps back and looks around moving on to more trees and then to people working in the greenery. I think McPhee sets it up this way to make us think about nature and how we should look at the beauty of it. I think McPhee would suggest that we take it for granted at times. McPhee takes a step back and looks at the people working so that his readers can also take a step back and think for themselves how nature used to be and how it is now with humans in the mix.
McPhee introduces the idea of fire with the shrubs and re-growth. He is talking about how amazing it is that nature can exist with such magnitude of beauty in such a volatile state (California wild fires). I think that he wants us to contemplate whether humans play a vital role in this maintenance. Without humans working about in this greenery it may not survive with such beauty because of the weather and dangers of fire.
There is just as much detail in this short article as there would be in his longer chapters.
McPhee provides great detail painting an image with the spread of fire and what could happen as a result. Once again like many of his other pieces I can picture the scene as if I'm there seeing it for myself.
McPhee gets a bit lost with the explanation of the fires and ties the greenery back into the article at the end. Making the article all come together.
I think that I'm looking for a deeper meaning in this article, which is what I think McPhee wants his readers to do. I'm trying to make connections with the trees, flowers, fire and workers and what it all actually means. McPhee usually sends the message across that humans come into nature and destroy it, so this is what I'm looking for in this piece. I think that he is presenting an issue of the natural order of things. He's contemplating humans entering nature and their impact and the possibility of “saving nature”.
Like I've said before I think that McPhee is looking to send a message, after all, that is why a journalist chooses to write; to influence people. I think that maybe not directly but more subconsciously we are taking in messages that McPhee sneaks in his writing.
This article is describing a nature scene. McPhee begins with trees, explaining the different kinds. He goes as far as to explain the way they grow estimating how tall they grow and how they descend. The article then moves into describing smaller types of bushes and shrubs. Naturally, McPhee moves into describing flowers blossoms (taking a closer look). I propose that he is setting the article up this way by describing the larger picture (with the tress) and moving in for a closer view (with the flowers and blossoms). After he describes a closer look with the flowers he steps back and looks around moving on to more trees and then to people working in the greenery. I think McPhee sets it up this way to make us think about nature and how we should look at the beauty of it. I think McPhee would suggest that we take it for granted at times. McPhee takes a step back and looks at the people working so that his readers can also take a step back and think for themselves how nature used to be and how it is now with humans in the mix.
McPhee introduces the idea of fire with the shrubs and re-growth. He is talking about how amazing it is that nature can exist with such magnitude of beauty in such a volatile state (California wild fires). I think that he wants us to contemplate whether humans play a vital role in this maintenance. Without humans working about in this greenery it may not survive with such beauty because of the weather and dangers of fire.
There is just as much detail in this short article as there would be in his longer chapters.
McPhee provides great detail painting an image with the spread of fire and what could happen as a result. Once again like many of his other pieces I can picture the scene as if I'm there seeing it for myself.
McPhee gets a bit lost with the explanation of the fires and ties the greenery back into the article at the end. Making the article all come together.
I think that I'm looking for a deeper meaning in this article, which is what I think McPhee wants his readers to do. I'm trying to make connections with the trees, flowers, fire and workers and what it all actually means. McPhee usually sends the message across that humans come into nature and destroy it, so this is what I'm looking for in this piece. I think that he is presenting an issue of the natural order of things. He's contemplating humans entering nature and their impact and the possibility of “saving nature”.
Like I've said before I think that McPhee is looking to send a message, after all, that is why a journalist chooses to write; to influence people. I think that maybe not directly but more subconsciously we are taking in messages that McPhee sneaks in his writing.